The Arctic has been warming about twice as fast as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. Studies are showing its changing the course of the jet stream, which steers weather systems from west to east, with wavier patterns  meaning steeper troughs and higher ridges that allow for cold fronts to come down from the north.Arctic Warming is Altering Weather Patterns, Study Shows

A "study, by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and Stephen Vavrus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, ties rapid Arctic climate change to high-impact, extreme weather events in the U.S. and Europe.

The study shows that by changing the temperature balance between the Arctic and mid-latitudes, rapid Arctic warming is altering the course of the jet stream, which steers weather systems from west to east around the hemisphere. The Arctic has been warming about twice as fast as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, due to a combination of human emissions of greenhouse gases and unique feedbacks built into the Arctic climate system.

The jet stream, the study says, is becoming "wavier," with steeper troughs and higher ridges. Weather systems are progressing more slowly, raising the chances for long-duration extreme events, like droughts, floods, and heat waves.

"[The] tendency for weather to hang around longer is going to favor extreme weather conditions that are related to persistent weather patterns," said Francis, the study's lead author.

According to the study, Arctic climate change may increase the odds that such high-impact, blocking weather patterns will occur. The study cites examples of other patterns that led to extreme events that also may bear Arctic fingerprints, including the 2011 Texas drought and heat wave, which cost the state's agricultural sector a staggering $7.62 billion - making it the most expensive one-year drought in that state's history.

In addition, the study also mentions jet stream configurations that led to heavy snows in the Northeast and Europe during recent winters. Such events are also "consistent" with the study's findings, according to the paper.

The reasons why the Arctic is heating up so quickly, a phenomenon known as "Arctic amplification," has to do with factors that are unique to the Arctic environment, involving feedbacks between sea ice, snow, water vapor, and clouds. As the area warms in response to manmade greenhouse gases, melting ice and snow allow exposed land and water to absorb more of the Sun's heat, which melts more ice and snow, and so on. A relatively small amount of initial warming can be greatly magnified in the Far North.

The temperature contrast between the frigid Arctic and the milder mid-latitudes is what drives the powerful jet stream winds, which are so important for determining day-to-day weather conditions.

In addition to making the jet stream have more pronounced north/south swings, the reduced temperature gradient between northern and southern areas is causing the westerly component of upper-level winds to slow.

The westerly component of upper-level winds during the fall has weakened by about 14 percent since 1979, the study found.

A slight slowdown in the jet stream may not sound like a big deal. After all, jet stream winds have been clocked at upwards of 200 mph. But it turns out that slowing of the jet stream influences its shape and the motion of individual storm systems.

Weaker westerly winds causes the big north/south swings in the jet stream to move more slowly from west to east, making weather conditions in a given location more persistent than they used to be.

In other words, rapid Arctic warming is expected to exert a growing influence on the weather far beyond the Arctic Circle, for many years to come. "

The Arctic has been warming about twice as fast as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. Studies are showing its changing the course of the jet stream, which steers weather systems from west to east, with ÂwavierÂ patterns Â meaning steeper troughs and higher ridges that allow for cold fronts to come down from the north.Arctic Warming is Altering Weather Patterns, Study Shows

A "study, by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and Stephen Vavrus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, ties rapid Arctic climate change to high-impact, extreme weather events in the U.S. and Europe.

The study shows that by changing the temperature balance between the Arctic and mid-latitudes, rapid Arctic warming is altering the course of the jet stream, which steers weather systems from west to east around the hemisphere. The Arctic has been warming about twice as fast as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, due to a combination of human emissions of greenhouse gases and unique feedbacks built into the Arctic climate system.

The jet stream, the study says, is becoming "wavier," with steeper troughs and higher ridges. Weather systems are progressing more slowly, raising the chances for long-duration extreme events, like droughts, floods, and heat waves.

"[The] tendency for weather to hang around longer is going to favor extreme weather conditions that are related to persistent weather patterns," said Francis, the study's lead author.

According to the study, Arctic climate change may increase the odds that such high-impact, blocking weather patterns will occur. The study cites examples of other patterns that led to extreme events that also may bear Arctic fingerprints, including the 2011 Texas drought and heat wave, which cost the state's agricultural sector a staggering $7.62 billion - making it the most expensive one-year drought in that state's history.

In addition, the study also mentions jet stream configurations that led to heavy snows in the Northeast and Europe during recent winters. Such events are also "consistent" with the study's findings, according to the paper.

The reasons why the Arctic is heating up so quickly, a phenomenon known as "Arctic amplification," has to do with factors that are unique to the Arctic environment, involving feedbacks between sea ice, snow, water vapor, and clouds. As the area warms in response to manmade greenhouse gases, melting ice and snow allow exposed land and water to absorb more of the Sun's heat, which melts more ice and snow, and so on. A relatively small amount of initial warming can be greatly magnified in the Far North. ...

Is NASA too liberal for you? Sounds like anyone left of Ghengis Khan is liberal.

Evidence: Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era  and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earths orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earths climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earths orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

 Sea level riseGlobal sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

 Global temperature riseAll three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

 Warming oceansThe oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

 Shrinking ice sheetsThe Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

 Declining Arctic sea iceBoth the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.9

 Glacial retreatGlaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world  including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

 Extreme eventsThe number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.

 Ocean acidificationSince the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

<quoted text>And?From a liberal organization!!!Let's tax everyone for more power and control!!!Why did Al Gore sold station to oil burning Muslims? Because you are a liberal easy to fool!!Some places get colder others hitters, there is a balance in nature you Liberas want to ignore.You only look at the heating places and totally ignore the colder places, and your fraudulent emails confirm such behavior.The Scientist who only look at the warming admit, many secretly, that is is NOT caused by men!!! But they need the grant money coming!!!You claim humans cause more Global Warming than a volcanic eruption and you are scientifically WRONG, embarrassingly wrong and stupidly wrong, ignorantly wrong and factually wrong!!!

Wallop10 has already shown how clueless most of your thoughts are.

Just remember that a properly-designed carbon tax would be REVENUE-NEUTRAL. This means that the total change in the size & financing of government is ZERO. The total amount of money removed from the private economy by the government is ZERO.

A carbon tax can be very stiff & very effective while still being revenue neutral. It's a Pigouvian tax that takes money from high carbon emitters & gives EXACTLY the same amount of money to low carbon emitters.

This punishes high carbon emitting individuals & companies while stimulating low carbon emitters to exactly the same extent. It may be very inconvenient for some, & would be a major adjustment, but it would be a tremendous boon for others.

Imagine a stiff carbon tax paid by producers of fossil fuels, especially the "dirtiest" one, coal, & the ones that emit unburned methane into the atmosphere. We already levy taxes on these things & have inspectors to see that they're paid, but the taxes are far, FAR too low.

100% of that tax could be paid out to every citizen (or legal resident) equally on a monthly basis. The costs for the computers & checks would be trivial. OK, maybe you'd have to have a few extra census workers or whomever to keep track of people.

(I'm not proposing this as the best or most practical way of making a tax revenue-neutral, BTW, just a way to easily imagine it.)

If you're a high carbon emitter, you pay thru the nose. If you're a low carbon emitter, though, you get free money, literally for nothing but living here & breathing.

In this theoretical proposal, you'd be able to easily return ~99% of the tax directly to the people. It'd be a major stimulus to invest in, & build, renewable energy technologies.

It would be inconvenient, yes, but a WHOLE lot less inconvenient, & way, way, WAY cheaper, than allowing AGW/CC to progress without mitigation. It would also give us a better bargaining position to negotiate with China, India & the rest of the world so that all need to reduce emissions.

Or maybe you think the Chinese ENJOY trying to breathe the air in Beijing? They WILL clean up, & they WILL reduce their emissions. They don't want to see Shanghai under water.

We are the country most responsible for current warming, so we should take the lead. Lots of other countries have carbon taxes, & their economies haven't collapsed.

<quoted text>And?From a liberal organization!!!Let's tax everyone for more power and control!!!Why did Al Gore sold station to oil burning Muslims? Because you are a liberal easy to fool!!Some places get colder others hitters, there is a balance in nature you Liberas want to ignore.You only look at the heating places and totally ignore the colder places, and your fraudulent emails confirm such behavior.The Scientist who only look at the warming admit, many secretly, that is is NOT caused by men!!! But they need the grant money coming!!!You claim humans cause more Global Warming than a volcanic eruption and you are scientifically WRONG, embarrassingly wrong and stupidly wrong, ignorantly wrong and factually wrong!!!

Looks like we have another radical here. When one must equate scientific works with liberals, it becomes very apparent that this is the case. Then they parrot the mantra of the agenda driven deniers. Sorry, but it does not make sense.

<quoted text>Looks like we have another radical here. When one must equate scientific works with liberals, it becomes very apparent that this is the case. Then they parrot the mantra of the agenda driven deniers. Sorry, but it does not make sense.

You forgot to address the question. Here we go again:

Why did Al Gore sold his station to oil burning Muslims?

If he really cares so deeply about the environment why did he?

No liberals had been able to answer that question, no liberal!!!

Also another shock and awe question that mutes Liberals immediately is the following:

If Obama cares so much about the GLOBAL environment, no just America's, why did he gave billions of dollars to Brazil for their OIL exploration?

<quoted text>You forgot to address the question. Here we go again:Why did Al Gore sold his station to oil burning Muslims?If he really cares so deeply about the environment why did he?No liberals had been able to answer that question, no liberal!!!Also another shock and awe question that mutes Liberals immediately is the following:If Obama cares so much about the GLOBAL environment, no just America's, why did he gave billions of dollars to Brazil for their OIL exploration?See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites easy to fool by a rabid Liberal Media.

And?

Plenty of us have publicly voiced disappointment with what Gore did, not because al-Jazeera is somehow evil but because it is at least partly funded by oil money. But so what? Al Gore has NOTHING to do with AGW/CC theory. He wrote a book & made a movie.

You could completely refute everything Al Gore has done & it'd make no difference to the fact that AGW/CC theory is correct. They have nothing to do with each other.

Of course during the recent election the MSM got it right, while the radical right wing media like Faux "News" lied so much they started believing their own lies. Who's truly biased?

The bottom line is that anyone who believes the radical right wing myth that the MSM have any "liberal bias" is simply psychotically detached from reality. It's absurd. They all have their biases, but they're trivial compared to the blinding radical right wing distortion you see every day at Faux.

The main daily goal at Faux "News" is to say "this is what Obama did today to break the law, violate the constitution & destroy the country." News that doesn't fit that paradigm isn't news. It's been that way for the past 4 years & it'll be that way for the next 4 years.

<quoted text>You forgot to address the question. Here we go again:Why did Al Gore sold his station to oil burning Muslims?If he really cares so deeply about the environment why did he?No liberals had been able to answer that question, no liberal!!!Also another shock and awe question that mutes Liberals immediately is the following:If Obama cares so much about the GLOBAL environment, no just America's, why did he gave billions of dollars to Brazil for their OIL exploration?See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites easy to fool by a rabid Liberal Media.

Same thing with Obama. He's done plenty of things that have been wrong, that have disappointed us. So? Politics is the art of the possible.

Obama is the 1st US President who's even started to take AGW/CC seriously. That alone is a major step forward, but a LOT of work needs to be done.

8 of the 12 largest companies in the world by revenue are oil companies, 2 are auto manufacturers, one is a utility & the other is WalMart. They ALL have powerful economic incentives to deny AGW/CC & delay action on it as long as possible. Carefully written laws might make the auto manufacturers, utility & WalMart more neutral, but those are minor.

The point is that there is an almost unimaginable amount of money & power that wants AGW/CC to be incorrect, & if correct, wants to delay action to mitigate it as long as possible.

During the previous administration the oil industry basically owned virtually all of the US government; now they may only own an enormous percentage of it. It will be a very long & difficult struggle to get the truth out, & then start to do something effective about it.

The odds, money & power are vastly in favor of the irrational, anti-scientific deniers.

<quoted text>And?Plenty of us have publicly voiced disappointment with what Gore did, not because al-Jazeera is somehow evil but because it is at least partly funded by oil money. But so what? Al Gore has NOTHING to do with AGW/CC theory. He wrote a book & made a movie.You could completely refute everything Al Gore has done & it'd make no difference to the fact that AGW/CC theory is correct. They have nothing to do with each other.Of course during the recent election the MSM got it right, while the radical right wing media like Faux "News" lied so much they started believing their own lies. Who's truly biased?The bottom line is that anyone who believes the radical right wing myth that the MSM have any "liberal bias" is simply psychotically detached from reality. It's absurd. They all have their biases, but they're trivial compared to the blinding radical right wing distortion you see every day at Faux.The main daily goal at Faux "News" is to say "this is what Obama did today to break the law, violate the constitution & destroy the country." News that doesn't fit that paradigm isn't news. It's been that way for the past 4 years & it'll be that way for the next 4 years.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.